Author
Topic: UWA (to complement 35/100/200)? (Read 5798 times)

I just paired my Canon T1i with the new Sigma 35 1.4. I use my flawless 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 for indoor and outdoor sports with massive success. The 35mm Sigma has similar color and contrast of my 30 1.4, but is sharper so I think I made a good move. So far I have some stunners and use it/plan on using it for everything other than sports - family, travel, landscape, flowers, etc. Especially in light of our pending big trip to Alaska would an UWA (which I have no experience with) be an important addition? I imagine that might be nice for sweeping landscapes and buildings up close both inside and out (in some cases), but do some do well with nothing but a 35mm (50+ equivalent on a crop)? Thanks.

canon rumors FORUM

I would think you might want something wider than 35mm, and also a TC for wildlife as well to stick on your 200mm. I bet you could find some flickr groups of Alaskan photography and see what lenses people are using. If you're going in the summer, you won't have to worry so much about low light, so you might be able to leave your 35/1.4 at home if you were worried about space.

+1 I had gotten 10-22 a few years ago to use with my 40D and didn't regret it at all.

Absolutely. If it's within your budget then why not? For a cropped sensor body, the Canon EFS 10-22mm lens is indeed a very nice lens and has been my favorite lens paired with my 7D. For UWA lens comparison purposes, you may check on this link on Sigma, Canon, Tamron and Tokina APS-C Wide-Angle Lenses: http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=34

canon rumors FORUM

Anyone with the new version of the Tokina 11-16? I haven't given it a fair shot, but have seen more "popping" pictures from the Tokina than the Canon. The new Sigma 8-16 gets great reviews, but I'd likely be using a polarizing filter on occasion so that might not be the best choice (with that considered).Thanks.

Anyone with the new version of the Tokina 11-16? I haven't given it a fair shot, but have seen more "popping" pictures from the Tokina than the Canon. The new Sigma 8-16 gets great reviews, but I'd likely be using a polarizing filter on occasion so that might not be the best choice (with that considered).Thanks.

PS No offense to the Canon 10-22.

IMO, the IQ differences between the Canon 10-22mm, Tokina 11-16mm, and Sigma 8-16mm are very minor - detectable on rigorous tests (but depending on which parameters you look at, each has strengths and weaknesses), not relevant for real-world shooting.

Basically, the non-IQ features are what should deive your decision. The Sigma offers the widest AoV but is the slowest, the Tokina offers the fastest aperture but is the narrowest AoV and narrowest range, the Canon is in the middle on both.

You mention using a CPL. Be aware that with UWA lenses, a CPL results in uneven polarization - you'll see banding of blue skies, for example. Still has utility, but with limitations.

Thanks. Still undecided, but do you think (even though they don't do much) that a good UV filter might be a worthwhile choice on an UWA in light of the problems with a polarizing filter on UWA's with maybe a minor desired effect in bright sunlight?

Thanks. Still undecided, but do you think (even though they don't do much) that a good UV filter might be a worthwhile choice on an UWA in light of the problems with a polarizing filter on UWA's with maybe a minor desired effect in bright sunlight?

A UV filter is for protection only. They don't do anything positive for IQ (unlike film, dSLR sensors are effectively insensitive to UV wavelengths). Without getting into the whole debate for/against filters for protection, if you do decide that's something you want to do, get a good quality one so IQ doesn't take a hit, also look at both clear and UV filters and get whichever is cheaper.

Thanks. It wouldn't be for protection so that leaves me on the "not needed" half of the arguement. That leads to an UWA being the "best" choice or not for landscape in bright sunny/water/snow conditions or maybe sticking with a normal prime for that even if limiting at times.

That leads to an UWA being the "best" choice or not for landscape in bright sunny/water/snow conditions or maybe sticking with a normal prime for that even if limiting at times.

Well, it's 'best' to have the focal length you need, IMO. Shooting with an APS-C body, you have very limited options for ultrawide prime lenses (i.e. wider than 15mm), and a wide or normal prime (or zoom) may not give you the AoV you need. Using a tripod and pano head and stitching shots is an option, but that doesn't play nice with a CPL either.

Even on an ultrawide, a CPl is good for cutting reflections from water, increasing saturation for foliage, etc., and sometimes the uneven skies aren't a big deal.